Tuberville failed to mention that he’s personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.

  • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what?

    the loser, the statement was encouraging a voting position

    “everyone I disagree with is trolling”

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      the statement was encouraging a voting position

      the phrasing didn’t indicate that. “Should never win an election” would be much more clear than “should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.

      • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        the phrasing didn’t indicate that

        the phrasing certainly didn’t indicate that they wish for the abolition of the GOP, you came up with that on your own

        "should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.

        you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud, at the end of an election there can only be one party allowed into office

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud

          Actually, I view it as the opposite. Really this is subjective language differences. But should not be allowed to me implies there is rules prohibiting, where’s shouldn’t be able to implies that they should just fail to.

    • skippedtoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hmm, it seems one of us has misinterpreted the statement. I interpreted the should not be allowed in office as, “a law should be passed saying that”.

      While you, perhaps correctly assumed that it means people should not vote for them. Sorry I thought you were being willfully obtuse. Still, I am not completely convinced my interpretation of statement was wrong.

      But regardless, we are both apparently in agreement on this point.

      But, my second point stands, that you are an unpleasant person using intimate and friendly words as an attack.